Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#201

Post by dwighttk » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 12:35 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #175

roadnottaken wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, I know a solution to the obesity crisis....

Ayup. Basic income and universal health care. That way people can concentrate on their health, first, without having to worry about their daily salary to keep themselves housed, clothed, and fed. Oh, wait, that wasn't what you meant? :) As for your snide solution: There is research coming in that your body will reduce your metabolism in order to conserve fat. Fat cells "remember" the environment when they were create…

Huh, I lost a lot of weight when I was under more stress and gained it back when that stress was lessened.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#202

Post by rory096 » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 12:42 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #169

user731955373 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.

Only by turning almost 10% OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY into doing nothing but producing an atomic bomb. That's not 2 billion dollars, that's 2 TRILLION dollars. So, basically, redirecting the US military budget. I approve.

Source? Estimates I see for the Manhattan Project from a quick google range from .25% to .41% of GDP.

[0] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf

[1] http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/2006/02/want-manhattan-proj...

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#203

Post by rayiner » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:03 AM UTC

iaw wrote: post #198

rayiner wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discovery of fission was not the product of the Manhattan Project but a continuation of research into the atomic nucleus that had been proceeding for decades. Once that happened, Einstein's theory told you that the process would release a large amount of energy, and a bomb became simply an engineering task. By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. That…

I don't know where you see me stating that the discovery fission was a result of the Manhattan Project, it was a predecessor. The order of actions was: Einsteins Relativity -> Leo's Bomb Patent -> Discovery of Fission -> Manhattan Project -> Bomb. > By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that th…

> Over what time-horizon?

The relevant time is right now. If the U.S. government had said "yes, we can do it!" and invested $20 billion in building an atom bomb in 1915, they would've pissed that money away. It would've been mindless optimism. Doing it after fission had been discovered was a calculated investment.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#204

Post by socmag » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:09 AM UTC

M_Grey wrote: post #92

adventured wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference being that you don't have an army or the power necessary such that I'm going to consider your plans to be serious in the least. With $56 billion, I'm inclined to take Zuckerberg a lot more seriously. He currently has eight times the annual R&D budget of Pfizer in paper wealth that has been increasing in value at a rapid clip (emphasis on paper, in that of course it may go up a lot more or down a lot, w…

Well, to be fair I am responding to the grandiose statement that he made, not the more reasonable one that he could have made.

And again, trolley problems...

There is $3B on on one track, with a note pinned to the top.. "To cure all diseases - A train is barreling down.

On the other track lies you, with a hoodie and a ham sandwich.

Watching to the side is HN...

HN can pull the switch and change the points, thereby saving the $3B, but killing you... in the hope the $3B will cure all disease.

On the other hand HN can say screw the cash and let's save a ham sandwich, because (ummm, let's face it, sorry kid, you aren't going to amount to much)

Little did HN know, you ARE MarkZ!

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#205

Post by akiselev » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:10 AM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #202

bsder wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only by turning almost 10% OF AN ENTIRE COUNTRY into doing nothing but producing an atomic bomb. That's not 2 billion dollars, that's 2 TRILLION dollars. So, basically, redirecting the US military budget. I approve.

Source? Estimates I see for the Manhattan Project from a quick google range from .25% to .41% of GDP. [0] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf [1] http://mitchellhowe.blogspot.com/2006/02/want-manhattan-proj... [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf

He's likely thinking of the urban myth that over 10% of the US's power generation was used for the Manhattan Project [1] and confusing it with the cost of the project, for which estimates vary but is around $2 billion total (1945 GDP was $2 trillion).

[1] http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR11/Session/H13.4

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#206

Post by czep » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:13 AM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #159

goatlover wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remarkable in the same way a future gray goo invention would be. And it was a military initiative, developed for military reasons.

So was the internet. You never know if we will need that arsenal against asteroids.

And from whose rocket are you going to trust launching those nukes? I'm not interested in even being in the same Hemisphere as such a launch!

And everyone knows lasers are the solution to errant asteroids. Perhaps attached to evil sharks :)

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#207

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:17 AM UTC

euyyn wrote: post #170

BurningFrog wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the current medical research system is badly broken in several ways, and it's possible that a few billions spent on alternative approaches would bear a lot of fruit. It might also not, but I'm very glad if someone tries.

What approaches do you mean? In which ways do you think it's broken?

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#208

Post by nixos » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:17 AM UTC

iaw wrote: post #198

rayiner wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discovery of fission was not the product of the Manhattan Project but a continuation of research into the atomic nucleus that had been proceeding for decades. Once that happened, Einstein's theory told you that the process would release a large amount of energy, and a bomb became simply an engineering task. By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. That…

I don't know where you see me stating that the discovery fission was a result of the Manhattan Project, it was a predecessor. The order of actions was: Einsteins Relativity -> Leo's Bomb Patent -> Discovery of Fission -> Manhattan Project -> Bomb. > By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that th…

> Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened.

The issue is that we're quite a few "Nobel-worthy" inventions away from curing Cancer.

I mean, biologically we're not in the equivalence of 1950's physics. We're holding in 1300's physics.

I saw that someone once compared curing Cancer to landing on a moon without knowing basic Newtonian physics.

I expect that before we cure cancer, we'd have found ways to cure all "normal" diseases, have "designer babies" without side-effects, have "instant, proof-perfect medicines", etc.

I'd want his to work on those issues.

Right now it'll probably end up like Google X. A great lab, makes great prototypes, but practically get left behind by incremental technology.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#209

Post by M_Grey » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:19 AM UTC

socmag wrote: post #204

M_Grey wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be fair I am responding to the grandiose statement that he made, not the more reasonable one that he could have made.

And again, trolley problems... There is $3B on on one track, with a note pinned to the top.. "To cure all diseases - A train is barreling down. On the other track lies you, with a hoodie and a ham sandwich. Watching to the side is HN... HN can pull the switch and change the points, thereby saving the $3B, but killing you... in the hope the $3B will cure all disease. On the other hand HN can say screw the cash and let…

Are you actually replying to me, or are you... what the hell are you talking about?

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#210

Post by toufka » Thu, Sep 22, 2016, 1:28 AM UTC

kendallpark wrote: post #75

I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…

Without disagreeing with your point, there are actually currently gene therapies to cure trisomy 21 [1] (a clever trick of affixing the signal that is used to silence a (female's)/the (male's) X chromosome to the 3rd of the 21st chromosomes). I don't think it's all the way through FDA approval, and is still very much experimental, but is exactly the kind of thing that is curable. And that is where your point stands: it is hard to know which unknowns are easy unknowns, and which unknowns are nearly impossible unknowns because both are currently of the same quality - unknown. The grandiose claim is fancy, and much will be accomplished in 80 years, but even ill-defined language of 'disease' and 'cure' belies our ignorance.

[1] http://www.biospace.com/News/down-syndromes-extra-chromosome...